Its not hard work to come up with ideas, or steal other peoples ideas, I have plenty of ideas, theres no shortage of ideas,
If you're such a goddamn genius, tell me again why you're not rich?
I mean, I'm assuming here that the constant complaints about being too poor to even fucking eat (transposed, humorously, with news of your purchasing a new MP3 jukebox) indicates that you're not, indeed, rich.
"Working hard" doesn't always mean breaking your back for a bowl of rice a day and not knowing any better than to keep working the same job.
If you think for one minute that either of those two men just sat on their asses and magically became rich, then you've got a whole lot of the world to learn about outside of your pampered college environment.
Oh yeah, and last time I checked, it just so happens that you were studying Computer Science. Funny, huh? They don't do a goddamn thing all day if it's not sitting on their asses. Bet that makes you feel really guilty.
Quit your whining. This is a good thing people and it's an example of what makes capitalism great.
Read up on Joseph Schumpeter [newschool.edu], arguably the most brilliant economist to come out of Austria. One's inability to see that the move of IT labor offshore is a good thing is largely due to a failure of most people to understand Schumpeter.
Schumpeter's primary focus was on capitalism as a dynamic system. It continually evolves through creative destruction. There are countless examples of this phenomenon.
A 120 years ago, most Americans were living on farms. With little mechanization, hard manual labor was the order of the day. As mechanization began to become more prevalent, thousands upon thousands of farm workers were surplus to requirements. Doom and gloom predictions that the move from an agricultural economy to a non-agricultural economy would lead to the collapse of America were common. Politicians ran on platforms aiming to keep the family farms solvent and prevent greater mechanization (for instance by taxing production of goods that could be used for farm mechanization).
However, mechanization and consolidation took place in the agricultural business. Today, less than 3% of Americans are farmers, and there are far fewer farmers today than there were then. If static economic analysis, from the perspective of the past, was used to look at the economy today (or during the boom years of the late 1990's), the only conclusion would be that the US was in a total depression, because the vast majority of the old farm jobs were gone.
So why wasn't it the case that the US went on to enjoy even better economic times than in the late-19th century? Why isn't there 90% unemployment (since from the 19th century perspective, 90% of the jobs that existed then are gone today)?
What no one saw was that freeing up the most important capital, human labor, from inefficient application to the task of growing food for other purposes. What those who looked at the farms failing and saw disaster were missing was that now the farmer was able to go to the city and be basically as well off working in a factory, and that the farmer's children would go on to become doctors or lawyers or engineers or skilled laborers. Indeed, the industrialization could not have happened without the farm failures.
For a more recent example, look at the state of heavy industry over the last 30 years. In the 1950's, 50% of Americans worked in industrial occupations, creating physical products. Nowadays, it's less than 20% (IIRC). You would expect there to be massive (>30%) unemployment, wouldn't you?
But there's not 30% unemployment. The children of factory workers went to college and became clerks or salesmen or scientists. Think about what your grandparents did for a living. With few exceptions (I'm one of them; my grandmother was one of the early programmers of ENIAC-type machines), they weren't computer scientists, sysadmins, or electrical engineers. They were probably factory workers, or day laborers, or housewives, or maybe a clerk at some large industrial concern.
By freeing up human capital from making cars and clothing and other labor intensive tasks, financial services, creative services, IT itself could be spawned.
IT arose out of the collapse of an old economic model; it will collapse as a major player. It is inevitable. In 20 years, the jobs held by the readers of this site will have demand levels at a fraction of what they were before. In a century, we'll be looked at as the farmers; while there will still be demand for the tasks we perform, it will be nowhere near what it is today (and nowhere near what it was a few years ago).
The core of what I'm saying is that we don't know what will come next (though it is most likely happening below our noses). There is a fear of the unknown that most people seem to have. Do I know what's coming next? No. But am I certain that something will come along next to consume our collective labor in a new and even more ef
...and gotten bored with your food, so you start mixing together the melted ice cream with the ketchup, gravy and chunks of meatloaf to make a big, squishy mess?
Now, think of the aural equivalent. Oh, real great.
What makes you think spammers are to blame? Spam blocklists are censorware - their (unaccountable, usually anonymous) maintainers are beholden to none except themselves, often block sites for no other reason than to further their own political agendas, and burden innocent bystanders (unwitting customers of an ISP that (might) host spammers) with the cost of doing their job for them.
But, come on. This is a beta version, and they are just now adding support for Active Directory? They're more than a little behind the curve - I've been able for quite some time now to go and purchase Windows 2000 Server and use Active Directory.
What gives with the massive delay? I thought open source was supposed to allow developers to copy software more quickly than the proprietary model.
That Intel would be employing Middle Easterners, much less the Terrorists themselves. They can kiss my business goodbye - never again will I buy a chip from a company that employs those later found to be complicit in international terrorism.
Is when you start giving people credit because of what other "celebrity" physicists say about them, rather than what you can determine.
I mean, come on, "boldness"? What a lame way to rate a scientific discovery. Is it valid? Does it makes sense? These are the questions that matter. But I guess in a field so advanced beyond the understanding of the layman, the only comparisons that can be made are ultimately nonsensical.
The Power4, to which you are comparing the P4 in SPEC benchmarks, is IBM's high end UNIX server chip which costs thousands and thousands of dollars, and furthermore, would never be found in a Mac, or any machine that sets you back less than the price of a decent house. Why you make this comparison is beyond me, but it has nothing to do with the PPC970's results.
I don't feel a need to debunk your claims about the Itanium2, since it seems that other people have already done a good job of it.
Computers are best left to technical fields. Plus you have the problem of the learning curve - how much will it take people to figure out how to properly use whatever technology you require of them? Remember, it doesn't matter if you think it's easy - if it gives them any kind of trouble, you're going to have to take time away from what you're supposed to be teaching to help with with the technology.
I say, leave technology out of English. Time would be better spent teaching the way that it has worked for hundreds of years - without the computer. Sure, computers can aid those with good typing skills in getting a paper done faster, but they far and away are useless in such courses as a teaching aid. If it were an engineering course, I would say differently - the world has changed much through the transition from slide rules to calculators to computers. But leave English out of it.
I'd like to see some independently-verified benchmarks before I believe that it's the "Fastest desktop in the world". I seriously doubt ol' bullshitter Stevo would tell the full truth.
I can't believe this. One more step towards the nanny state. Sure, if you're an adult, you can just ask for the filter to be turned off, but what if you're a teenager? I know a lot of sites about reproductive health that would be blocked by these filters. What if some kid needs to find out medical information about STDs or how to get help if he might've gotten his girlfriend pregnant?
There are all kinds of legitimate uses that are being stopped though this software because it is far from perfect. I can only hope that the Supreme Court doesn't continue with this apparent precedent for saving a few at the expense of many others. After all, how long of a jump is it from this to, say, imprisoning anyone who could be a terrorist, based on demographics? Sure, a lot of innocent folks would be robbed of their rights, but, hey, we've stopped a couple of terrorists from causing trouble. Things are better, right?
Except that telephones and gas stations both recieved government subsidies. Supermarkets were meeting an existing demand for food. Fax machines were not nearly as large of an investment as building and supplying a gas station.
Forget about fuel cell membranes being fragile, the real problem is in getting the fuel to the cell in the first place.
First of all, there's the huge problem of how you're supposed to store hydrogen onboard your car. I've seen several proposals, but they all have their drawbacks (fuel too heavy, tank required too heavy, too explosive, too dangerous in a crash, etc.). It seems that nobody's come up with a reasonable solution to this problem.
Secondly, there's the problem of fuel distribution. Unless and until there's some way to hook up a fair number of gas stations with a hydrogen fuel supply that these cars can use, nobody's going to buy into fuel cells being used for transportation. Of course, along with this problem is the one of how such an infrastructure upgrade will be financed in the first place without a demonstration of existing demand. The only way I can really see this chicken-and-egg problem being overcome is massive government investment in infrastructure upgrades. Sorry, libertarians, but the free market is going to fail here.
So, basically, we have a long way to go (if we ever even get there at all) before we see cars powered by fuel cells in general use. Until then, they're mostly a curiosity (and a very expensive one, at that.)
Slashdot Mirror
If you're such a goddamn genius, tell me again why you're not rich?
I mean, I'm assuming here that the constant complaints about being too poor to even fucking eat (transposed, humorously, with news of your purchasing a new MP3 jukebox) indicates that you're not, indeed, rich.
What research, you shitbag? You haven't proven a goddamn thing.
If you think for one minute that either of those two men just sat on their asses and magically became rich, then you've got a whole lot of the world to learn about outside of your pampered college environment.
Oh yeah, and last time I checked, it just so happens that you were studying Computer Science. Funny, huh? They don't do a goddamn thing all day if it's not sitting on their asses. Bet that makes you feel really guilty.
Quit your whining. This is a good thing people and it's an example of what makes capitalism great.
Read up on Joseph Schumpeter [newschool.edu], arguably the most brilliant economist to come out of Austria. One's inability to see that the move of IT labor offshore is a good thing is largely due to a failure of most people to understand Schumpeter.
Schumpeter's primary focus was on capitalism as a dynamic system. It continually evolves through creative destruction. There are countless examples of this phenomenon.
A 120 years ago, most Americans were living on farms. With little mechanization, hard manual labor was the order of the day. As mechanization began to become more prevalent, thousands upon thousands of farm workers were surplus to requirements. Doom and gloom predictions that the move from an agricultural economy to a non-agricultural economy would lead to the collapse of America were common. Politicians ran on platforms aiming to keep the family farms solvent and prevent greater mechanization (for instance by taxing production of goods that could be used for farm mechanization).
However, mechanization and consolidation took place in the agricultural business. Today, less than 3% of Americans are farmers, and there are far fewer farmers today than there were then. If static economic analysis, from the perspective of the past, was used to look at the economy today (or during the boom years of the late 1990's), the only conclusion would be that the US was in a total depression, because the vast majority of the old farm jobs were gone.
So why wasn't it the case that the US went on to enjoy even better economic times than in the late-19th century? Why isn't there 90% unemployment (since from the 19th century perspective, 90% of the jobs that existed then are gone today)?
What no one saw was that freeing up the most important capital, human labor, from inefficient application to the task of growing food for other purposes. What those who looked at the farms failing and saw disaster were missing was that now the farmer was able to go to the city and be basically as well off working in a factory, and that the farmer's children would go on to become doctors or lawyers or engineers or skilled laborers. Indeed, the industrialization could not have happened without the farm failures.
For a more recent example, look at the state of heavy industry over the last 30 years. In the 1950's, 50% of Americans worked in industrial occupations, creating physical products. Nowadays, it's less than 20% (IIRC). You would expect there to be massive (>30%) unemployment, wouldn't you?
But there's not 30% unemployment. The children of factory workers went to college and became clerks or salesmen or scientists. Think about what your grandparents did for a living. With few exceptions (I'm one of them; my grandmother was one of the early programmers of ENIAC-type machines), they weren't computer scientists, sysadmins, or electrical engineers. They were probably factory workers, or day laborers, or housewives, or maybe a clerk at some large industrial concern.
By freeing up human capital from making cars and clothing and other labor intensive tasks, financial services, creative services, IT itself could be spawned.
IT arose out of the collapse of an old economic model; it will collapse as a major player. It is inevitable. In 20 years, the jobs held by the readers of this site will have demand levels at a fraction of what they were before. In a century, we'll be looked at as the farmers; while there will still be demand for the tasks we perform, it will be nowhere near what it is today (and nowhere near what it was a few years ago).
The core of what I'm saying is that we don't know what will come next (though it is most likely happening below our noses). There is a fear of the unknown that most people seem to have. Do I know what's coming next? No. But am I certain that something will come along next to consume our collective labor in a new and even more ef
Don't mean to nitpick, but aren't you completely forgetting about the three who died in the Apollo 1 accident?
Now, think of the aural equivalent. Oh, real great.
Good riddance, I say. I sure won't miss them.
YHBT.
Holy dog shit! Texas? Only steers and queers come from Texas.
Carmack's games aren't exactly known for their intricate plots or gameplay.
This is just a blindingly cool idea.
What gives with the massive delay? I thought open source was supposed to allow developers to copy software more quickly than the proprietary model.
That Intel would be employing Middle Easterners, much less the Terrorists themselves. They can kiss my business goodbye - never again will I buy a chip from a company that employs those later found to be complicit in international terrorism.
I mean, come on, "boldness"? What a lame way to rate a scientific discovery. Is it valid? Does it makes sense? These are the questions that matter. But I guess in a field so advanced beyond the understanding of the layman, the only comparisons that can be made are ultimately nonsensical.
This is a rule that we see broken time and time again.
The Power4, to which you are comparing the P4 in SPEC benchmarks, is IBM's high end UNIX server chip which costs thousands and thousands of dollars, and furthermore, would never be found in a Mac, or any machine that sets you back less than the price of a decent house. Why you make this comparison is beyond me, but it has nothing to do with the PPC970's results.
I don't feel a need to debunk your claims about the Itanium2, since it seems that other people have already done a good job of it.
I hate to say it, but I told you so.
I say, leave technology out of English. Time would be better spent teaching the way that it has worked for hundreds of years - without the computer. Sure, computers can aid those with good typing skills in getting a paper done faster, but they far and away are useless in such courses as a teaching aid. If it were an engineering course, I would say differently - the world has changed much through the transition from slide rules to calculators to computers. But leave English out of it.
I'd like to see some independently-verified benchmarks before I believe that it's the "Fastest desktop in the world". I seriously doubt ol' bullshitter Stevo would tell the full truth.
There are all kinds of legitimate uses that are being stopped though this software because it is far from perfect. I can only hope that the Supreme Court doesn't continue with this apparent precedent for saving a few at the expense of many others. After all, how long of a jump is it from this to, say, imprisoning anyone who could be a terrorist, based on demographics? Sure, a lot of innocent folks would be robbed of their rights, but, hey, we've stopped a couple of terrorists from causing trouble. Things are better, right?
Except that telephones and gas stations both recieved government subsidies. Supermarkets were meeting an existing demand for food. Fax machines were not nearly as large of an investment as building and supplying a gas station.
First of all, there's the huge problem of how you're supposed to store hydrogen onboard your car. I've seen several proposals, but they all have their drawbacks (fuel too heavy, tank required too heavy, too explosive, too dangerous in a crash, etc.). It seems that nobody's come up with a reasonable solution to this problem.
Secondly, there's the problem of fuel distribution. Unless and until there's some way to hook up a fair number of gas stations with a hydrogen fuel supply that these cars can use, nobody's going to buy into fuel cells being used for transportation. Of course, along with this problem is the one of how such an infrastructure upgrade will be financed in the first place without a demonstration of existing demand. The only way I can really see this chicken-and-egg problem being overcome is massive government investment in infrastructure upgrades. Sorry, libertarians, but the free market is going to fail here.
So, basically, we have a long way to go (if we ever even get there at all) before we see cars powered by fuel cells in general use. Until then, they're mostly a curiosity (and a very expensive one, at that.)
You know, for when you don't want your computers heating your house, one way or the other.
Do they call them chips in England too?